I'll second Wapitikev's assessment of Daredevil Director's Cut. If you just CAN'T get past Affleck's portrayal of the character, then you probably still won't like it. But the DC does flesh out the characters a bit more and the plot is MUCH more focused. Kingpin seems to actually play a role rather than just being some guy that Daredevil fights at the end of the movie. I don't even remember well the original version, so I can't break down all the differences, but they do almost completely get rid of the love story between Daredevil and Elektra.

I really like the DC cut of Daredevil. I'venever had a problem with Affleck. Not sure why a lot of people do. I even liked the regular version of DD but after I saw theDC there was no going back.

I've never had a problem with Affleck. Not sure why a lot of people do.

Eh. He comes across as an smug sanctimonious SOB.

At first I thought that was just the characters that he played. Now I realize either he's as typecast as Danny Trejo or Steve Buscemi, or that he can't play anything else.

Which was loosely adapted from the novella "Who Goes There?" by John W. Campbell, Jr.

So the posters before you, Dejo, seem to be saying that it was OK for JC to re-make it, but it's not OK for someone else to remake it. I can't argue with that kind of blinding logic.

"Blinding logic?" C'mon, we're talking about 2 different things here. When they remade "The Fog" they were simply copying JC and dumbing it down by utilizing WB actors and crummy CGI effects along with a idiotic script. Gone was the tension, terror and suspense that JC instilled in the original. No Hal Holbrook or Adrienne Barbeau either.

When JC made "The Thing" he wasn't copying the 1951 version at all, but rather bypassing that version and taking the source material straight from the original story. It was a remake in name only and much more faithful to the original story. The 1951 version had a freakin' vegetable who had his own the little geranium going in his private room for criminey sakes.

I was never saying that it was OK for JC to remake anything because he didn't. However, if somebody wants to bring their own take of "Who Goes There" to the screen then by all means do so. Just don't rape JC's while you do so.

As for your comment they should remake all of his films because

"all the posers and wannabe horror directors will have had their chance and some unknown with talent can get a crack at it...that way, it has a chance to be good."

I have to disagree. If there is an unknown with talent out there he should make his mark by giving us something original instead of plundering somebody else's film.

In the event that you completely disagree with everything I've said or even just disregard it they STILL shouldn't remake JC's films. Why? Because John Carpenter is one of the greatest horror directors of all time and they should keep their grubby hands away from his stuff. They shouldn't remake Hitchcock's films either. Come to think of it they shouldn't cover Beatles songs either. While we're at it stay the hell away from Scorcese and Kurosawa before you get any bright ideas.

No one forces me to see movies either but let's campaign for some originality before we condone the rape, plunder and downright castration of true classics all in the name of "stimulating Hollywoods economy." There's plenty of good ideas out there waiting to be brought to the screen but the suits are too busy recycling yesterday's classics and transforming them into travesties all in the name of opening weekend $ and DVD rentals. For every Pulp Fiction, Crash or Little Miss Sunshine we get a never ending parade of remake garbage like "The Hitcher", "Posiedon", "Godzilla", "The Pink Panther", "The Bad News Bears" or "Halloween". How about we work on getting Repairman Jack to the screen instead of blowing 100 million on "Escape Fron New York" and turning Snake Plisken into a PG-13 waste of time?

[QUOTE=Miskatonic & Gin;149075 While we're at it stay the hell away from Scorcese and Kurosawa before you get any bright ideas.

[/QUOTE]

But I'd like to see McG's take on The Godfather!

How about we work on getting Repairman Jack to the screen instead of blowing 100 million on "Escape Fron New York" and turning Snake Plisken into a PG-13 waste of time?

Hear hear! And may Brett Ratner direct it! (Especially if he gives Jack the same treatment he gave Batman!)

Hear hear! And may Brett Ratner direct it! (Especially if he gives Jack the same treatment he gave Batman!)

I don't think you mean Brett Ratner AKA the killer of the X-Men franchise. Christopher Nolan directed Batman Begins.

Haven't seen it. Don't want to see it. The only Ben Affleck movie I can tolerate is Sum of All Fears, and only because Morgan Freeman salvaged it, (doesn't mean it was good).

Ben Afflec's Hollywoodland was good.

"Blinding logic?" C'mon, we're talking about 2 different things here. When they remade "The Fog" they were simply copying JC and dumbing it down by utilizing WB actors and crummy CGI effects along with a idiotic script. Gone was the tension, terror and suspense that JC instilled in the original. No Hal Holbrook or Adrienne Barbeau either.

When JC made "The Thing" he wasn't copying the 1951 version at all, but rather bypassing that version and taking the source material straight from the original story. It was a remake in name only and much more faithful to the original story. The 1951 version had a freakin' vegetable who had his own the little geranium going in his private room for criminey sakes.

I was never saying that it was OK for JC to remake anything because he didn't. However, if somebody wants to bring their own take of "Who Goes There" to the screen then by all means do so. Just don't rape JC's while you do so.

As for your comment they should remake all of his films because I have to disagree. If there is an unknown with talent out there he should make his mark by giving us something original instead of plundering somebody else's film.

In the event that you completely disagree with everything I've said or even just disregard it they STILL shouldn't remake JC's films. Why? Because John Carpenter is one of the greatest horror directors of all time and they should keep their grubby hands away from his stuff. They shouldn't remake Hitchcock's films either. Come to think of it they shouldn't cover Beatles songs either. While we're at it stay the hell away from Scorcese and Kurosawa before you get any bright ideas.

No one forces me to see movies either but let's campaign for some originality before we condone the rape, plunder and downright castration of true classics all in the name of "stimulating Hollywoods economy." There's plenty of good ideas out there waiting to be brought to the screen but the suits are too busy recycling yesterday's classics and transforming them into travesties all in the name of opening weekend $ and DVD rentals. For every Pulp Fiction, Crash or Little Miss Sunshine we get a never ending parade of remake garbage like "The Hitcher", "Posiedon", "Godzilla", "The Pink Panther", "The Bad News Bears" or "Halloween". How about we work on getting Repairman Jack to the screen instead of blowing 100 million on "Escape Fron New York" and turning Snake Plisken into a PG-13 waste of time?

I enjoyed you post very much. Way to get'cher rant on!

Heh.

I apologize for the "blinding logic" comment...it was the 10 cups 'o Java talking. Unfortunately, I fear a campaign to stop remaking every movie made before 1989, and some after, will fall on deaf ears in Hollywoodland (maybe Ken can tell us if Absurdistan goes that far north). You flatter me when you suggest that my recommendation would influence anyone to remake a Scorcese or Kuwasawa movie (and there is a whole thread elsewhere about whether that's already been done or not). [tips hat to flattery]

Unfortunately, even without my recommendation, someone will remake the Godfather, eventually, as horrible as that may be to contemplate. :eek:

That's why the original post in this thread said, since they're gonna do them all anyway, regardless of what we want, let them do these first:

I'm not sure about JC being one of the greatest horror directors of all time...normally I reserve that comment for my top three to five. John was an icon and would make my top ten (just) but he's certainly not in my top 3, particularly considering all the flops he's had since 87 (when he did POD).

I agree that the Thing and Escape from New York do not need a remake, they are just fine the way they are. I also agree that Halloween was an inferior remake and should have been left well enough alone. Even POD could go without a remake...

I just hope that POD's remake, somehow, against all odds, turns out to be good, when they get to it.

As far as the RJ movie goes...considering the amount of casting and director recommendations I've made over the last 2 months, I'd say I'm already doing my part to get RJ1 made. Alas, I don't live in Hollywood so that's the limit of what my humble skills can be expected to accomplish.

-Wapitikev

[SIZE="7"]BLASPHEMER!!![/SIZE]

May the gods of rock spare you...you know not what you say.

Who Wants to Live Forever
Princes of the Universe
Give Me the Prize

...what's not to love about those songs?!

The songs are all crackers --- I really like Queen, and I think that there themetune for Flash Gordon was awesome, and fit the cheesy comic book action perfectly.

I think that Highlander is a totally different tone of film. The best part of the story are the tradition bound, melancholic, tortured protagonists. They either live forever desperately alone or endure the death of everything they love time and time again. Cheesy 80s cock-rock kinda undermines the pathos a little.

The soundtrack should add mood and atmosphere to what's happening on screeen- not totally overwhlem it.

Good luck on those UNIs, Bones, I look forward to you posting the best bits on your Art Blog.

-Wapitikev

Cheers, Wapitikev.

Other movies that NEED to be remade:

Star Wars: Episode I and Episode II.

Heh.

-Wapitikev

brilliiant suggestions.

In a similar vein, I would venture that Matrix 2 & 3 need to be remade ASAP. From the ground up, starting with giving The Wachowskis a little less money and a lot longer on the script . . .